Richard M. Stallman, the furry, neckbearded goat-god of the “free software movement,” offered this comment on Steve Jobs’ passing on his Web site:

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone.” Nobody deserves to have to die – not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs’ malign influence on people’s computing.

This is the same guy who eats his own toe-jam while lecturing people on the wonders of free software and heckles speakers who dare to speak in favor of products that Apple makes like developer and educator Fraser Speirs, creator of “The iPad Project,” a 1:1 iPad deployment in Scotland schools.

I used to admire this man…he even stayed at my home once, when he came to give a talk in town for my Linux Users’ Group…but he’s gone off the deep end, worse and worse as time passes…he’s one of the reasons why I stepped away from Free Software and stopped writing documentation for projects (I have/had lots of documentation on many different projects, both in english and spanish).

It’s a shame that he has managed to destroy whatever legacy he had built back in the 80s and 90s.

Stallman turned into an irrelevant zealot decades ago. Filth like this is the only reason he gets on any of our radars. Ignore the troll.

Mark Dalrymple

@michael, to be fair, his contribution to the world has been huge, software wise. gcc, gdb, emacs, large chunks of the gnu basic unix tools, etc. But that still doesn’t excuse him for being a dick.

Anonymous

To be even more fair, the kind of things Stallman has contributed are common and have also been done by others in academia for years. Many years ago, back in College, we rewrote our own versions of basic Unix commands, wrote basic text editors as an exercise with pointers, I wrote a job scheduler as part of an advanced course on operating systems, did similar work on compilers and even simulation programs. What we wrote and what students before us wrote were made commonly available, etc. There is nothing Stallman did that hasn’t been done many times before by others. Many of these things were common Computer Science projects for students. Innovation comes from taking these basic building blocks that are commonly available and doing something completely new. Reverse engineering what others have done doesn’t take vision, rather, it’s a common academic exercise.

Fake

Without RMS, there would be no mass adoption of free software. Without free software, no OSX. Without OSX, Steve Job’s death would have been a footnote.

Not sayin the guy’s not an emotional retard, I’m just sayin’

BayswaterBill

SJ skated to where the puck was going to be. Had it been going someplace else, he’d have been ahead of it there too.

Root

Without Jobs influence, just few persons might have a PC. Don’t say that eventually someone would made that because since years we are expecting flying cars and nobody can do it yet to the masses.

I fully respect Stallman, but does he really think on helping everyone or does he makes everything to personal purposes/benefit? Just try to understand what am trying to say.

I find interesting how Jobs tried hard to involve people that don’t understand technology easily. It doesn’t matters if everyone like it but the intention is what it counts. Am wondering how does RMS has in mind when he talks like that. I get what he is trying to do, but certainly is not the way of do it, not even close.

Stallman only deserves respect, not admiration and that’s sad because am great open source fan.

Steven Fisher

Maybe. And I’m not saying you’re running a ridiculous line here, because you’re not. Stallman had a huge impact on open source.

But the other side of this is that people are willing to write off a lot of what Steve Jobs did as things other people would have done. If so, we need to do the same with The Raging Dick Stallman.

Personally, I don’t think that’s fair to either. I think they both did their positive contributions uniquely, and nobody else would have done as well. But Steve’s direct contributions to the industry are now over, and I think The Raging Dick’s meaningful and positive contributions ended several years ago.

Anonymous

There is no mass adoption of free software.

Windows. That’s mass adoption. iOS is as well. Stallman is barely known by anyone who isn’t a full-on Linux geek.

Ask the average person who this guy is, and I think you’ve got all you need to know. I’d suggest he lives in his parents basement, but given the gross toe cheese thing, I’m gonna guess he lives in a cardboard box and names his socks.

Mhm. It’s just that: Stallman is right. You may argue that Jobs changed people’s lives, changed the industry, whatever… But he changed it exactly in the way Stallman says. He changed it for the worse. I’m very happy he’s gone. I’m convinced jobs was a dangerous, if not evil person. I’d better not have all the changes he brought. Thank you for pointing me to the words of Richard Stallman, which I used on my blog to answer a comment right now.

(Oh, btw, as for Jobs being a “visionary” and “changed peoples lives”: Stallman is the true visionary here. He had the one brilliant idea that really changed the industry – and our lives.)

Benedict Poole

Extraordinary. Just extraordinary.

His Shadow

No, Stallman is not right. The simple fact that iOS defines the mobile space and not anything remotely “open source” is one small part of it. The other part is that Steve Jobs, like every other content distributor, is at the mercy of large, professional organizations who actually expect to be paid for the services they provide. Steve Jobs dragged the content providers into the 20th Century (never mind the 21st) and showed them that there was money to be made distributing their content digitally that could outwieght what they believed they were losing to piracy.

As for the closed nature of iOS, constantly referred to as some kind of crime by zealots like Stallman, the simple fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs devices democratized information in a way that Stallman’s approach never, ever could. No one except for edge cases wants to spend hours days or weeks of their lives reinventing the wheel every time they want to get things done. That Apple and many, many, many others believe that they deserve monetary compensation for the act of producing hardware and software that puts the power of information directly into the hands of the average consumer is not vile, perverse or any of the other epithets zealots routinely direct at the software/hardware industry.

It’s likely that if Stallamn did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. But the fact that Apple’s products do not allow you too tear them down and rebuild them, or let you see the code that runs them, or let you build programs from their interface cannot be considered harmful to consumers.

Life isn’t a William Gibson novel. The world at large has no interest in hacking, cracking and home brewing their everyday devices. On the contrary. They just want to get shit done.

@hisshadow:disqus : I fully agree with what you say about open vs. closed in terms of operating systems, software or even hardware. I just happen to be interested in an open system, but I’m fully aware that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. That’s fine. And it’s not as if Apple is the one, “evil” company that depends on proprietary software. As you say, it’s the other way round. Proprietary is the way to do it, free software is a niche product. (A good one, though.) And again: fine for me.

Also, it’s perfectly fine to sell your products and make money. It’s a common misconception that free software is about not having to pay for applications or operating systems. But again, that’s not the point. Like all other players, Apple is in business to do – well, business. Fine. Nothing wrong with that, nothing ‘evil’ Jobs has done here.

The one evil thing that Steve Jobs did was: He promoted the closed, walled-garden ecosystem and pushed it to a level consumers and politicians would have never accepted a few years before. No choice, no free market. The worst of communism and capitalism in one ecosystem. Also, he blatantly lied to people, selling them year-old technology as “magical” inventions. He had no vision, he did not create anything. He betrayed his customers, that’s all.

He sold a sort of happiness to people that you only find when you disconnect from reality. He did so by taking the burden of freedom and personal responsibility off people’s shoulders. That’s what drug dealers or (often charismatic) leaders of a cult will do. Selling drugs in school yards is something I’d consider evil. And the important part is: It’s evil no matter how happy the kids become when they’re high on drugs, and no matter how happily they’ll come back for more. (This last part is important, because Apple customers being oh so happy and loyal is often used as a point for Jobs. In fact, the opposite is true.)

“The one evil thing that Steve Jobs did was: He promoted the closed, walled-garden ecosystem and pushed it to a level consumers and politicians would have never accepted a few years before. No choice, no free market.”

You know, except for the fact that you can load anything you want inside Safari (and you can even operate it from the home screen like an app!).

There were tons of people using fully open ecosystems on their flip phones before the iPhone came out. Oh, wait, no they weren’t.

Agreed, Brad. No choice he says? Last I heard people aren’t being forced to buy iPhones. If you disagree with Apple’s approach in the mobile market don’t embrace it.

I live in a walled garden, so be it. Quit climbing my wall to yell crap at me. You’re wasting your breath. It’s much nicer in here.

Alan

Oskar: Where is the integrated natural language / AI interface (like Siri) on your platform? Are you not free to run that software? No, you are not because IT DOESN’T EXIST. However, in the Apple ecosystem you are free to run it. So the idea that freedom to do things only exists in open platforms is not true.

“He had no vision, he did not create anything” – this is the most ridiculous thing you’ve mentioned. You can stand against a proprietary paid ecosystem that you need to jailbreak to circumvent; I don’t agree with your position but at least can understand that one. This however makes no sense at all and betrays any other arguments you might make.

One the one hand, Steve Jobs “betrayed” customers, but on the other hand, the fact that they’re happy SHOWS as a point against him? Seriously, I’m as much in favor of drug legalization as anyone, but wait until you come down before writing this kind of stuff.

For heavens sake, at least have the sense to use the word “evil” properly. How about “The one thing that Steve Jobs did that I disagree with is:”.

Offering a (semi) closed computing environment is not “evil”. In fact, what the iPhone offered (and still offers) is MORE open than what the cellular phone carriers had been doing for years.

Fear of Jobs/Apple gaining the kind of influence (that Apple had over the music industry) PUSHED the carriers to open the marketplace (JUST like the music industry – remember DRM on music? What happened to that? Oh yeah, Apple scared the Music industry).

I would argue that the cellular phone industry is MORE open due to the success/threat that the iPhone presented. Otherwise you’d STILL have a basketload of phone you couldn’t change, and you’d be controlled by the CARRIERS, rather than the company that made the hardware. A company I will note, that pretty much says “hey you bought our iPhone, do whatever the hell you want with it, just don’t call for warranty support after you fuck with it.”)

But this whole “evil” thing? It’s just stupid. Just for the future, you might want to use cogent arguments instead of slapping the word “evil” on it.

His Shadow

“He promoted the closed, walled-garden ecosystem and pushed it to a level consumers and politicians would have never accepted a few years before. “

I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. Closed systems existed long before Jobs and they exist in tendem with iOS with no help from Apple. There are industries and models that simply could not function without being closed.

Politicians? Is that more of the nonsensical idea that iOS is an abusive monopoly? Because that’s not how any of this works. Don’t want to buy movies, music, TV shows and books from Apple’s store? Buy them them from one of a hundred other stores, web fronts, mail order, physical, digital copy and streaming content providers. You are under no obligation to buy anything from Apple whatsoever. You can own an Apple device and never by anything from iTunes.

Apple has clear, stated, defensible reasons for running the iOS platform the way it does. This is not a lie, a cheat or deception. And, all of that considered, you can buy an Apple product and jail break it, so almost all of the handwringing over Apple’s supposedly unreasonable control is entirely invalidated by the existence of side loading 3rd party development systems that have no need whatsoever for iTunes. And with it comes all the risk, loss of battery life, product functionality and integration with content provider expectations that are part and parcel of the reasons that iOS is closed.

Have you been in a walled garden? That’s where all the variety, security and pleasant atmosphere resides. Portraying the iOS platform as a place where consumers are chained to the walls, told what to think eat and drink is to be divorced from reality.

@hisshadow:disqus : Of course there have been closed ecosystems before – but not to that extent, not accepted by the public. That’s what I said. Jobs didn’t invent the walled garden (as he didn’t invent new things at all), he just sold it to the masses.

Also please don’t bring up jailbreaking as the example of how open and good an iOS device is. It is not intended for jailbreaking. Steve Jobs didn’t bring you the freedom to jailbreak. (Come on!) It’s like saying a car is the most environmental friendly means of transportation “as long as you don’t use it”.

When you say “Portraying the iOS platform as a place where consumers are chained to the walls…” – well… that’s exactly the point. That is not the case. The walled garden is the golden cage. You get music and entertainment and free drinks in there. The whole idea is that they need to keep you happy: Otherwise you’d turn around, see the cage and notice you’re trapped. And again, altough I said it before, this is what’s evil. Making people give up their freedom, make them not only accept, but even overlook the cage – for what? For free drinks and decent music. It’s like in the drug dealer analogy. Those who buy the drugs are happy as long as the supply lasts, as long as they can afford it, as long as they get enough to always enjoy the same level of happiness. That’s why you take drugs in the first place: They make you feel better, not worse. These people being happy doesn’t make the drug dealer less evil. (And of course you can always argue that nobody forced them to take drugs in the first place, that they could always stop if they really wanted, that they keep on taking drugs because it makes them feel so much better than the rest… Sounds familiar to me.)

I’m feeling somewhat lost with the points your trying to make that as an iOS user, you can buy content like music, applications,… for your device from everywhere, completely bypassing Apple’s channels. I have never seen anyone doing this on an iPhone. They jump through loopholes to even get free web content stored on their devices locally – with software (!) they got from – where? Right, the Appstore. Apple’s Appstore. People can’t even send their own photos to my device or delete them on their own phone without connecting to an iTunes-enabled computer. It’s bizarre. It’s a cage. Beautiful, full of luxury, but a cage.

Oskar: “Of course there have been closed ecosystems before – but not to that extent, not accepted by the public. That’s what I said. Jobs didn’t invent the walled garden (as he didn’t invent new things at all), he just sold it to the masses.”

It was accepted completely as “the way it had to be”. It was, in fact, what gave the iPhone it’s success.

So, reading your “I’m feeling somewhat lost” comments, it’s clear you also don’t know how to even use an iPhone. Most of the folks I know get the content onto their iPhone/iPad though channels like people mailing them content.

I myself have THREE different apps on my iPad/iPhone that support AFP/SMB/FTP and I sync my content with my hand-built (Open Source, I will note) Media center. I connect my iPad/iPhone/iPod to my iTunes MAYBE once every couple of months, solely to back it up.

And no, Steve Jobs did not “bring you the freedom to jailbreak”. Of course, not, he probably would think it was like tearing out the back seat of a mercedes sedan to carry bags of grain, but OTOH, you can do it, and it’s YOUR problem.

So, maybe you should stop using poorly considered “drug dealer” analogies and actually know what you are talking about. (If you want, I’ll stop laughing at that stupid analogy long enough to tear it apart.)

Of course there have been closed ecosystems before – but not to that extent, not accepted by the public. That’s what I said. Jobs didn’t invent the walled garden (as he didn’t invent new things at all), he just sold it to the masses.

AAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

“Windows”. Does that name ring a bell?

. People can’t even send their own photos to my device or delete them on their own phone without connecting to an iTunes-enabled computer. It’s bizarre. It’s a cage. Beautiful, full of luxury, but a cage.

You don’t actually know shit about iPhones, do you.

Anonymous

Your use of hyperbole is astounding. What meaning is left in the word “evil” or “closed” when you apply it to a business model that consumers can enter or leave whenever they please?

He did so by taking the burden of freedom and personal responsibility off people’s shoulders.

He did no such thing. What Apple did was remove the uncertainty of interacting with a larger world thru multiple lines of communication. Apple’s hardware works as intended, and it works brilliantly. The user, casual or sophisticated, is freed from the clutter and nonsense of configurations, scripts, rebuilding, file systems and hardware fiddling and is left unimpeded to access the data one wishes to see, hear, read or create. Despite all hyperbolic claims to the contrary, Apple’s products free users, not confine them.

Compare the way people interact with their iOS devices to how people in Star Trek interact with computers and you will shit bricks.

His Shadow

No choice, no free market.

This is impossible to square with the reality of the way Apple does business and the relationship Apple has with it’s customers.

For one, the content providers Apple has lined up for iTunes are directly competing for customers of the iTunes store. That’s why, in case you hadn’t noticed, there are 20 million songs from thousands if not tens of thousands of artists of differing styles and genre. The same goes for movies although the selection is not as large.

For two, the App Store is the epitome of a free market enterprise. There are over 100 thousand apps, with significant overlap in functionality because there are hundreds if not thousands of ways to implement the thousands of APIs and leverage the functionality of iOS. If one is under the delusion that Apple is running some kind of developer concentration camp, well, that’s what it is: a delusion. You as a seller of products are not allowed to set up a stall in Walmart without jumping thru a significant number of hoops. Nor can you begin selling your wares from the register at Sears without be required to pass thru a similarly daunting process. To pretend that when Apple requires minimum standards and a validation procedure before you are allowed to hock wares in their store is some kind of draconian Stalag run with malicious intent is to be, as many of us continue to point out, divorced from reality.

This is one of those close-minded, uninformed comments that has me longing for a “report for idiocy” button in disqus.

Oh my God!

Anonymous

Not worth debating Oskar, people. “I’m happy he’s gone”? That’s the kind of comment he chooses to make at the passing of a true innovator and fellow human being. Whether a proponent of “open source” or not, if you can’t see the achievements of someone like Jobs and acknowledge their positive impact you’re not dealing in facts, only emotion.

Deaths and greater tragedies always bring out the sociopaths, those unable to empathize or feel compassion, narcissistically making it about THEIR beliefs, even thinking that the death of a human being somehow bolsters that belief system. I’m sure his family and children are not “happy he’s gone.” Petty and disturbing stuff.

Root

That’s exactly the words I was trying to find. How can we actually debate with people like Oskar. I’m feeling sad because I have a friend that just let emotion control his brain. Sad thing because it’s a good person.

BLAAAHAHAHAHAHA…he wasn’t even first with open source and free software you idiot.

The Original BSD license was first verifiably published in 1988. When did the GPL come out?

Oh snap. he wasn’t unique, nor particularly visionary. His “accomplishment” has been in making millions of people think that software licensing is a moral judgement, and that RMS is the final and sole renderer of said judgement. Don’t do things the way he likes? You’re a BAD PERSON! You’re UNETHICAL.

That’s all I need. A political hobo with a bad dye job telling me how to live my life.

You see, that’s the thing, you don’t know shit about the side you’re ON, much less the side you’re against. But by god, you’ll parrot everything RMS says without the slightest iota of analysis.

That is kinda weird / gross … but you’re also asking us to buy into your logical fallacy. Stallman has hygiene issues and so his claim must be wrong. But he’s not. Corporations have legal teams constantly trying to own all the ideas and prevent others from innovating. This locks up the inventive culture more and more every day. iTunes, many said it’s brilliant. Some things I can’t listen to without it. But what if it is bad for your system as it has been for me. So I’m locked out of the content. It’s done the absolute reverse to what it’s claimed. It’s closed content off rather than opening it. I’m not the only one like this.

Today you might read an article at PC World. A guy is suing Kickstarter for violating his patent of a crowd source funding system. Really? Somebody patented pooling a cash donation to a single person. Did he provide code? No because software patents don’t require the code. So they are totally off the track of the rest of the patent system.

This is why it’s evil. And too often the wrong groups get the patents where the real geniuses, the individuals who solved the problems get nothing because their brain is wired to invent, not be a lawyer or acquire as much money and power as possible. There are books written on this subject. But hey isn’t it more fun to just attack Stallman by pretending he said something offensive?

Stallman is a broken man who clearly has issues that are explained by either autism or Asperger’s. His callous disregard for human beings is recorded by almost all who have dealt with him. He is a zealot, and has no tolerance for conflicting opinions or arguments. He will not be dissuaded from his perception of Steve Jobs as the tech world’s Devil and on that basis, Stallman’s comments regarding Jobs are classless, rude and most of all, incorrect, guided as they are by the aforementioned zealotry that brooks no opposing viewpoint.

“But hey isn’t it more fun to just attack Stallman by pretending he said something offensive?”

You’ve defended him yourself. If he has those conditions, I guess he can’t control it. Too bad. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong about openness, despite his narrow view of Steve Jobs. None of this matters though really. Goodbye.

Steven Fisher

Stallman’s significant mental issues are unfortunate, but he’s long since passed the point where they’re adequate justification. He is not trying to get better, and he is acting out significantly.

He has a good idea, but lacks the emotional maturity to even conceive of a compromise. To get quality content consistently requires being willing to pay the authors, whether it’s music, books or software. His outbursts have actually significantly hurt his cause.

Asperger’s is not an omnipresent excuse for any and all bad behavior. It may EXPLAIN it, but it does not EXCUSE It. Stallman may have Aperger’s, he may not, but using a condition that millions fight, every day, so that it is neither crutch nor wall, as some pathetic “well, can’t call him on anything, Asperger’s”? Yeah. No. There’s a reason whey “Asperger’s” and “Asshole” are different words. Stallman is being an asshole. His Asperger’s may contribute to that, but it neither justifies nor excuses it.

iTunes, many said it’s brilliant. Some things I can’t listen to without it. But what if it is bad for your system as it has been for me. So I’m locked out of the content. It’s done the absolute reverse to what it’s claimed. It’s closed content off rather than opening it. I’m not the only one like this.

What content does APPLE lock you out of? Music? Not any more, and who lead that charge? Apple.

Movies? Right, because Apple determines licensing. Oh wait, they don’t. The MPAA does that. Apple doesn’t determine licensing, Apple COMPLIES with it so that they can distribute the content you pinhead.

Today you might read an article at PC World. A guy is suing Kickstarter for violating his patent of a crowd source funding system. Really? Somebody patented pooling a cash donation to a single person. Did he provide code? No because software patents don’t require the code. So they are totally off the track of the rest of the patent system.

oh, so Steve Jobs invented software patents, then wrote, and passed all those laws single-handedly. Wow. Is there ANYTHING Steve didn’t do?

This is why it’s evil. And too often the wrong groups get the patents where the real geniuses, the individuals who solved the problems get nothing because their brain is wired to invent, not be a lawyer or acquire as much money and power as possible. There are books written on this subject. But hey isn’t it more fun to just attack Stallman by pretending he said something offensive?

No, he DID say something offensive. But I do like how you’re blaming steve for shit he had nothing to do with. Good job there.

His Shadow

Thanks for the reminder that Disqus allows HTML.

Anonymous

What he may not realize is that Steve’s inspired so many of us to continue his work. And I know I’ll be proud to spread the “malign influence”.

Did you know that is is possible to add unsupported apps to an iOS device without using iTunes and without jailbreaking it? Better still, the solution is provided by Apple. It is a free app for Mac & PC and is called iPhone Configuration Utility.

His Shadow

Good point. Forgot about that entirely.

Anonymous

What a waste of biomass. Can’t someone at least compost him and make him serve a useful purpose?

Come on people. It’s Stallman. You all should be overcome with not-surprise.

Billy

Steve Jobs didn’t deserve to die so young but neither does he deserve to be mourned. The man cruel and sadistic. Besides treating his employees like shit, he never donated to charity despite his immense wealth and even dismantled apple’s philanthropy programs when he came back as apple’s ceo in 1997. Furthermore, apple’s Chinese factories are basically forced labour camps, where employees are required to promise that they wont commit suicide. T

Just because he set a trend, the world is willing to overlook all this and celebrate him as a visionary… What a shallow world we live in.

His Shadow

It’s shallowness is perfectly typified by a person such as yourself, unable to see past the surface of the Apple technology surrounds us and understand what supports, drives, and sustains it’s creation.

There are not opinions. Just because he created a popular consumer product it is OK to overlook his failures as a human being? I am not debating about apple’s products, whether or not apple revolutionized computing etc etc are irrelevant, but rather Steve Jobs’ (and by extension apple’s) conducts towards their fellow humans. It seems to me you are the lacking proper perspective.

Steven Fisher

Indeed. You can see how poorly he treated his employees by how genuinely and authentically they mourn.

Vamsmack

You wrote that ill informed terrible comment which was written on a device thanks to low labour prices in China.

That’s a fair point. There are stories of how Shah Jahan cut off the hands and tongues of the chief architects of Taj Mahal so that they don’t make or help make anything as beautiful ever again. That is evil. But then what Steve has done? Is it evil? Nope. I wouldn’t say it evil. It could have been done differently(as an open source), but nobody did it so and Steve’s work was the second best option and an actually practically viable one.

What would the world’s literature be like if people don’t hold the copyright to their characters and content. Think. It would be better, of course. But then what of the original creator? Their name would die down among the vast ocean of contributors as an also-ran. In an ideal world, maybe it is a good thing, what with the original creator being a contributor to the creation of others. But the world we live in is hardly ideal and we have to take the second best always.

And I wouldn’t call the closed environment, the second best so easily. In an ideal world it is second, but our world is hardly ideal. As an example please read fanfiction.net and compare the stories on it with the original ones. Many times than not, people kill the soul of the original making their rendering of the original in an open(and supposedly better) version a sour experience rather than a sweet one.

I don’t use Apple products and I have not even touched anything apple except for a iMac for a few minutes in a demo. But I respect Steve Jobs for making the computer, a common man’s need. People like Stallman are geeks and only they can work with their free software while normal people will only feel bad about having to use free software of others. Seamless compatibility is the most important need for them. Apple provided it. And that made Apple a success. And Jobs a legend.

And a correction: Alexander did not conquer Magadha, the largest and most powerful Indian state. And he was killed due to his over-ambitiousness. Who knows, he might have lost the war with Magadha if he had crossed the Ganga and fought the 300,000 men waiting for his arrival. I am convinced he would have been beaten. He was wise to turn back rather than cross for then he would have had to die in battle. As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand war elephants.

Thank you for recognizing some of the differences between hobbyists and consumers.

Vamsmack

Yuck.

This just strikes me as an increasingly irrelevant and toxic person screaming controversy in a vain attempt to stay relevant.

His Shadow

It would almost certainly be so if it were not for the fact that Stallman doesn’t for a second care what others think about him. The opinions of others are irrelevant. It only matters what he believes.

This is how Richard Stallman will be remembered: as a nasty creep, a disgusting crackpot. When he dies I doubt there will be the same level of respect and admiration that Steve Jobs has been getting.

Steve Jobs changed the world. Richard Stallman can barely change his own underwear.

Etomicek

Mr. Stallman, Hope you join Mr Jobs soon, if not You, Your near family. That is how I feel.

Kevin_marriott

Ya I think this ass should not have been able to talk at all 

Anonymous

The sad thing here is not just the human insensitivity (inhuman sensitivity?) but the giant missing of the point on “people’s computing.” Stallman’s vision of computing is not inclusive, it is exclusive. You have to put on a propeller beanie and turn off your right brain and learn bash or you have to buy a typewriter. In other words, it is nerd reeducation camp for all. It’s 99% of the people doing what 1% want. He only pretends to be inclusive. His use of “people’s” is propaganda. Jobs’ vision of computing was inclusive. He reeducated the computer, not the user, so the computer could work almost immediately for the 99%, whether grandma newbie, toddler, airline pilot, artist, doctor, lawyer, warehouse worker, salesperson, or even a programmer who wants to read the eBook version of a technical manual on an iPad as he works on a GNU/Linux workstation. When you consider that iOS is the only computer system ever made for 100% accessibility, it makes Stallman sound rifldiculously smaller again.

Not only is that inclusivity good just in its own right, but do you really want your doctor futzing with Linux when he is reading your chart and discussing a diagnosis with you? Do you want life to include 20 computers in every room but rather than one being a music player and one a set-top and one a digital pad of paper, and so on, they are all just Linux workstations?

Anyway, one should not get too down about this. Stallman lost, just like his commercial version Bill Gates. If there is anything we can learn about the state of computing from Mr. Jobs’ untimely death, it is that his vision of computing has been universally embraced. Even people who are using Windows or Android complain that they are not Mac and iPhone, even if they don’t know that is what they are doing, they say why is it so unreliable and Byzantine, why does it expect me to be an I-T person? They want the computer to do the hard work of adapting to them, not the other way around. That is the job of the computer, not the user.

So Mr. Jobs won. He just did better, and he won. He didn’t play philosophical political games, he didn’t use politics as an excuse for broken systems and missing capabilities like Stallman and Gates (I can’t make it better without compromising my political beliefs) he just kept making the products better until they became much more than the sum of their parts. People don’t think about their iPhone RAM allotment or boot sectors and so on, they think about the beauty of the sunset they just photographed and sent immediately to their lover on the other side of the world with little more effort than just thinking of doing it. There is a time for bits and bytes, but it is rareand you don’t have to push it on anybody, they will find it if they want it.

When I first read the statement, having nursed a family member dying of a similar cancer, that he meant that the suffering had ended but when I read the full posting rather than the lead in on Twitter I was, am and remain, physically disgusted.

Regardless of anyone’s argument in defense of the actual statement there is no need to make statements such as that one. Certainly not this soon after his passing. I hope that when the time comes for Stallman’s exit that someone says a similar thing.

Haxus Magnus

Note that RMS wrote an opinionated web log on his personal website. In this blog, he wished that evil people should stop being evil; that is it, nothing more. Stallman considers Steve’s actions as evil because Steve used to sell computer products that restricts their users. He didn’t want Steve Jobs dead, he wanted Steve Jobs to stop being evil while Jobs was alive. Now that Steve Jobs is gone, he cannot commit any more malignant behaviour and this is what RMS means.

There’s that word “evil” again. Most likely employed by sheltered middle-class people who’ve never directly experienced what the word means. Did Steve “rape your childhood,” too?

Who here is being compelled to use Apple products or services against their will? Who can claim that they’ve never had alternatives to use? What is truly evil about a company that creates products that lots of people enjoy using, that isn’t also true of every other company in its category?

Which of you open-source priests defending Stallman’s childish, sociopathic diarrhea is prepared to admit that mass popular adoption of Apple products feels like a threat to your tech-prowess superiority over normal consumers?

Haxus Magnus

These are strawman arguments. Yes, alternatives to Apple products does exist, but these other products do not absolve Apple of conducting evil. The fact that people choose Apple products of their own volition does not absolve Apple of conducting evil.

Evil in the context of Apple products refers to Apple’s attitude that is associated with the technology being offered. It is the attitude about where control should reside: should users have control over their computers, or should the vendors of the technology maintain control over those same computers? People who choose Apple products also choose to give up their freedom to help oneself and be an upstanding member of society.

No strawman here. Your rhetoric, thanks to fools like Stallman, is full of semantic extremism. You bandy around terms like “freedom,” “jail,” and “evil” in a very similar manner to religious extremists who believe they have sanction to condemn secular behavior that challenges their beliefs. That’s sad.

Let’s get a few things clear. I’m addressing this to the other free-software advocates who’ve chosen to come to this thread to post insults and preach dogma.

I have as much control over my computer as I’ve ever required to get the work done I obtained it for, which is the only work connected with computers that ever interested me. I say this not only as a consumer, but as a graphic designer and the holder of a B.A. in Computer Science. The degree mostly showed me how little interest I had in programming, compared to the useful computing-based tools that programming held the promise of. The Mac was released about a year after I got that degree. It was what I’d been waiting for.

I consider your definition of “freedom” as roughly equivalent in importance to an auto mechanic’s ability to replace a carburetor. I need neither of those skills in the life I’ve chosen. I do need to know that my car will work as advertised, and I pay a retailer and a garage to see that it does. Just as I need to know that my computer will allow me to build pages, create illustrations, and modify images without my having to have learned machine language or PostScript.

Not surprisingly, most consumers feel the same way I do. The lack of interest in Linux on the desktop as an everyday tool for ordinary users should tell you something about this.

Your high moral posturing doesn’t make you heroic, it makes you sound ridiculous. Requiring computer users to pursue only open-source in order to be “upstanding members of society” sounds a lot like what I’ve been hearing from the worst religious zealots all my life. Nice to feel superior, isn’t it? Reminds me of people in college who’d found Marxism.

You are not champions of anything most people care about. You are taking what amounts to an obscure hobby and ennobling it with the descriptors of genuine political activism and revolution. That’s nice for y’all. But defending your guru’s inconsiderate, careless rudeness doesn’t sway anybody in your favor.

You’re championing nobody but yourselves and your self-congratulatory pride in knowing how to tinker. You have no respect for the consumers you claim to be advocating for, or your collective work would have resulted in capabilities more consumers could use without following you down your hobby hole.

You say “evil” as though you know what the word means. You don’t. You’re confusing it with “widespread success that you are somehow not responsible for.” You also ignore facts about the Mac’s capabilities that contradict your arguments because you believe most users are too stupid to make full use of them.

You say “jail” as if you’ve ever been in one. I doubt you have. Meanwhile, I continue to create art and documents in both proprietary and non-proprietary formats on my Macs. I use iTunes to play non-DRM audio and video from a variety of sources, including ripped CDs and archive.org. I do a bunch of things you disapprove of, and a bunch of other things you’ve claimed the Mac doesn’t allow.

In sum: we’re not buying snake oil today. Go write a modal dialog box that says something unhelpful. Most of the rest of us have other work to do.

You know, I feel concern about people who use those words (freedom, evil, jail…) in things too small as source code or programming in any ways. It’s like the world is so small in their lives.

As programmer I don’t need everything open sourced. As a matter of fact, mostly of the time I have to create my own packages and libraries because what is out there don’t fill my needs.

I use Linux for servers and Mac for everything else. Should I care how companies and organizations make their business? No, at least not me. Why? Because as long their legal I’ll approve them and I’ll use them.

You’re always be free to buy whatever you want. That’s the real life. Try to respect the competition products you don’t accept, because those are making yours improve faster.

I am sorry but the actual comment and way it was implied is unforgivable and sorry but the guy is to say the least pathetic. I don’t give a damn what contributions he has made.

When I was growing up something that was not a thing that was ever done was to say ill of the dead but he has done that.

If something cannot be said to someone’s face, then it is not okay to say it to others behind the back and certainly not okay to say it when the person has died.

I don’t give a damn about your defense of this P.O.S. talking of P.O.S. I have the sudden urge to go to the bathroom and drop a STILLMAN.

Haxus Magnus

When remembering a person life’s after one dies, is it wiser to speak nothing but good things OR, is it wiser to accept everything about that man, good AND bad, AND learn from his mistakes? Remembering the ugly truth about the past isn’t about disrespect. Whenever meditating upon history, it should be in the context of learning lessons so that we may all make positive life contributions as a result of their experience.

Blah

His products helped tons of people realize their passions. How did he dare! They would have been better of recompiling their kernel over and over. Ah, endlessly patching stuff because the shit refuses to fucking work. That’s how you should spend your time! And if you disagree, it just proves you’re a cultist, a brainwashed iSheep and I wave my fist angrily in your general direction.

Haxus Magnus

> Interestingly, what Stallman holds as his highest ideal (making software accessible to the masses) is precisely what he hasn’t managed to achieve, while Jobs abundantly did.

This is a strawman argument because RMS does not hold this ideal, RMS’s highest ideal is for society to value freedom. In the specific case of computer software, this means all users have the implicit freedom to tinker with software and the implicit freedom to share with friends and contribute to their community.

Steve Jobs conducted a business to offer computing prisons to customers. Profiting from business is not a problem, restricting users of their computers is evil. RMS wanted Jobs (and everybody offering proprietary software) to stop being evil by ceasing to distribute proprietary software.

Steven Fisher

This is an argument of computers for computing purposes, vs. computers for tools purposes.

You can have your computers for computing. People like you will not compromise. That’s fine. We don’t need you to.

Instead, we choose computers as tools for resolving real world problems. We recognize that most people don’t care about being able to rebuild their tools. They want to solve problems, and they’re willing to pay for their problems to be solved elegantly.

And so we’ll create new tools, for problems you haven’t even recognized, and we’ll sell them. To people who are incredibly grateful for the fix for the problem we’ve solved. (Indeed, we get hugs in the street from people who recognize us.) And others will create even more amazing tools to compete with ours. We’ll quietly gripe, and make our tools even more amazing. And in this way, we’ll be years ahead of you before you can even start to whine about what’s happened.

Go ahead, try to catch up. For the most part, we welcome it. Really, though, you should be grateful. We who believe in computers to solve problems in the real world give you something to chase.

Even if you can’t possibly catch us while the problem is still relevant.

Haxus Magnus

As I wrote before, the problem isn’t in business or earning a profit; we (free software advocates) don’t care if you profit $1 or one million dollars doing business e.g. writing and selling software.

The problem is the loss of user freedom. Do you know what happens when a user copies a proprietary program without permission? That user is labelled a pirate insinuating the act of sharing being equal to violence upon the high seas. Do you know what happens when a user studies a computer program in order to learn what it does? That user is labelled a hacker insinuating the study of published materials is equal to trespassing in a private location and disrupting a form of sanctity.

We find it objectionable to hold such attitudes towards users of published software, the attitude of software proprietors maintaining unjust control over the users’ computing. This is immoral; users should have implied freedom to help oneself and contribute with their community. Once again, the problem isn’t in business or profit, the problem is in the evil attitudes behind the existence of proprietary software. Users deserve the freedom to study and tinker and share; software proprietors desire to restrict such freedom.

You also make a couple of flawed assumptions in your post. You’re assuming that we don’t consider software as tools; software exists to solve an information problem or perform some information task. Secondly, you assume we don’t profit financially while maintaining the philosophy of user freedom. I started and raised a business specialising in consulting, support and advocacy in free software that I’ve since sold. All my current businesses now contract their IT support to that business.

The problem is the loss of **user freedom**. Do you know what happens when a user copies a proprietary program without permission? That user is labelled a pirate insinuating the act of sharing being equal to violence upon the high seas. Do you know what happens when a user studies a computer program in order to learn what it does? That user is labelled a hacker insinuating the study of published materials is equal to trespassing in a private location and disrupting a form of sanctity.

Nonsense. In fact, you’ll find most proprietary license allows you to make an extra copy of software. Adobe allows you, iirc, to install CS on two separate computers as long as you don’t use them both at the same time. Microsoft and many others have similar clauses. Making a copy for backup is also okay.

Where they get pissy is when you copy and then distribute those copies. Just like the GPL, it’s distribution that is where they get annoyed. I can make 16,000 copies of CS. It is only when I start installing it on multiple machines, aka, distributing it that we have a problem.

But if you actually tell the truth about such things, well, then you lose your hysterical reason for existing, and you can’t have that, can you.

We find it objectionable to hold such attitudes towards users of published software, the attitude of software proprietors maintaining unjust control over the users’ computing. This is immoral; users should have implied freedom to help oneself and contribute with their community. Once again, the problem isn’t in business or profit, the problem is in the evil attitudes behind the existence of proprietary software. Users deserve the freedom to study and tinker and share; software proprietors desire to restrict such freedom.

You can do whatever you want with your stuff. It is when you want to do whatever you want with MY stuff that we have a problem. If I create it, it’s MY stuff. YOU can’t use MY creations for whatever you want without MY permission. That seems pretty fucking reasonable to me. But yeah, freetard.

Also, funny how, to be compliant with the GPL, you have to assign copyright, aka legal ownership of your work to the FSF. But they’re the good guys, so that’s okay.

You also make a couple of flawed assumptions in your post. You’re assuming that we don’t consider software as tools; software exists to solve an information problem or perform some information task. Secondly, you assume we don’t profit financially while maintaining the philosophy of user freedom. I started and raised a business specialising in consulting, support and advocacy in free software that I’ve since sold. All my current businesses now contract their IT support to that business.

that still doesn’t make you any more moral than Steve, or Bill Gates, or Larry ellison, no matter what RMS tells you.

Haxus Magnus

> users should have implied freedom to help oneself and contribute with their community.

Why I say copy software, I mean copy software with the express intent to distribute a copy to one or more friends; you help your friends by sharing with them, and sharing resources is how one contributes to one’s community. Proprietary software restricts the USER from living as upstanding members of society as one is forbidden to share software.

> It is when you want to do whatever you want with MY stuff that we have a problem. If I create it, it’s MY stuff. YOU can’t use MY creations for whatever you want without MY permission. That seems pretty fucking reasonable to me.

This is exactly the evil attitude that I am constantly referencing. It is unjust wield this control over your users when you tell them, “I am the master over this software and you must get my permission to do as you wish and you must not use it if you disagree”. It is the attitude about where control should reside: should users have control over their computers, or should the vendors of the software maintain control over those same computers? Whoever controls the software also controls the computer.

>Also, funny how, to be compliant with the GPL, you have to assign copyright, aka legal ownership of your work to the FSF. But they’re the good guys, so that’s okay.

This is opposite of correct. I will concede to this argument if you can quote the GPL on such requirement.

> that still doesn’t make you any more moral than Steve, or Bill Gates, or Larry ellison, no matter what RMS tells you. I am more moral that these people because I do not deprive users of their right to sovereignty and divide them from their community as these examples of software proprietors.

This is exactly the evil attitude that I am constantly referencing. It is unjust wield this control over your users when you tell them, “I am the master over this software and you must get my permission to do as you wish and you must not use it if you disagree”. It is the attitude about where control should reside: should users have control over their computers, or should the vendors of the software maintain control over those same computers? Whoever controls the software also controls the computer.

Control over a piece of software does not imply control over an entire computer.

This argument is what I can’t come to terms with: It’s ok for you to have the freedom to do everything you want with a piece of software, even if it comes at the expense of another person’s freedom.

Haxus Magnus

Control over a piece of software does not imply control over an entire computer.

Au contraire! Computer software is a series of algorithms that are designed to solve an information problem or accomplish a task; computer software are instructing the computer to perform a task. Computers work because people designed the computer to carry out software instructions. I’ll say it again, “Whoever controls the software also controls the computer.”

It’s ok for you to have the freedom to do everything you want with a piece of software, even if it comes at the expense of another person’s freedom.

Whoever controls the software also controls the computer. If I write a program and send you a copy, you run it on your computer. Whatever you choose to do to your computer own has no direct consequence to me. The software you accepted from me directly affects your computing ability: before you needed some software and now, your computer will carry out a new task as a result of that new software.

BTW, just an example of how draconian Apple’s Mac App Store is in terms of “copying software”:

Can I buy an app on one Mac for use on all my computers? Yes, you can install apps bought from the Mac App Store on any and every Mac that you personally own and use.

(source). Every developer and company that wants to publish software on the MAS, has to give people personal licences; they’re bound to a natural person, not one device. In comparison: Microsoft allows the installation of MS Office on one desktop computer and one laptop at the same time.

Haxus Magnus

The point is that computer sw is equal to knowledge and nobody should have the right to impose restrictions on sharing published knowledge. I should have implicit permission to share any software I am running on my computer with any friend that I please. If I have some sw running on a business computer, I can ask the IT admin for a copy and that admin should already have implicit permission from the sw vendor to distribute sw at will. If I see some useful sw running one system (eg. a gaming console), I should be able to take part of that system which I find useful and transfer that knowledge to a different system (eg a specialised network routing machine) then sell that updated machine freely. I don’t have an Apple computer but I imagine I own one for the sake of the argument. I purchase some sw from Apple then use it. I see my friend and he asks for a copy. I am now in a dilemma to choose one of two evil actions: do I break my promise with Apple to not share that software with my friend, or do I hurt my friend by upholding my promise to Apple and refusing to share? For me, the lesser of two evils is to break the promise, however, it is not good to make a promise only to break it at a later time. Users that are free have implicit permission to share with friends and contribute to their community. Proprietary software divides communities by saying sharing is forbidden.

Vamsmack

What about the perspective of a software developer who wishes to be financially compensated for the act of making software? So I buy a licence but my friend sees value in this software shouldn’t they then just buy a licence?

Here is an example of that. I was wanting to play with something new. @mangochutney:disqus told me about Flare an app on the Mac App store which seemed interesting and filled a need or want that I had so I bought it. Is he evil for not sending it to me or would it be evil to deprive a software developer who spent hours/days/months putting in effort to produce a Application which I find useful?

I think if we are talking evil in the sense you are it would both be evil to deprive the developer of their compensation and to put mangochutney in the position where I have an expectation that he would do something which compromises his morals by sharing software which he has a licence for his personal use.

By paying for software I am at worst compensating someone for their time and at best investing in the future development of a product I see value in.

Haxus Magnus

I encourage business that is thoughtful of society and its impact to its many actions and responsibilities; I abhor any business that is negligent towards its actions and responsibility, or otherwise is unjust towards society. A business that conducts evil (such as distributing proprietary software) should stop being evil (such as stop distributing proprietary software); the need to profit should never be an excuse to conduct evil.

I believe it’s good to pay for software; I encourage everybody to pay the software authors to encourage them to do more work. However, software masters should not wield unjust power over their users for any reason.

What about the perspective of a software developer who wishes to be financially compensated for the act of making software? So I buy a licence but my friend sees value in this software shouldn’t they then just buy a licence?Here is an example of that. I was wanting to play with something new. mangochutney told me about Flare an app on the Mac App store which seemed interesting and filled a need or want that I had so I bought it. Is he evil for not sending it to me or would it be evil to deprive a software developer who spent hours/days/months putting in effort to produce a Application which I find useful?

There is a of problem in your assumption. It’s great that Mango had access to the software master but what about you? You presume that access to the master (and therefore the software) is absolute. There is no regard for location, political situation, business is shutdown etc. that is between you and the master. Apple happens to be ubiquitous at this moment, but can you say the same for the masters of every single proprietor that has existed?

In any case, Mango is not evil for refusing to send you the app; you’d feel hurt or rejected but he wouldn’t be evil. The one who is evil is the master over the Flare app for binding Mango into social division.

Another assumption you make is that a non-sale of an intangible item equates to a loss. Don’t assume this. I encourage you to send money to the author of a program in order to show support for the author.

I think if we are talking evil … for his personal use.

Proprietary software causes users to choose between being divided from their friends or breaking a promise to the software master. It would be better to reject that software in the first place so one isn’t bound into the promise. This is exactly what I mean when I say, “the problem is the loss of user freedom.”

I did not have access to any master copy, I just bought the app and used it. Flare isn’t proprietary software, it’s written in a language like cocoa or C and can be rewritten to run on other computers. Having a restrictive licence doesn’t make it proprietary.

Proprietary software causes users to choose between being divided from their friends or breaking a promise to the software master. It would be better to reject that software in the first place so one isn’t bound into the promise. This is exactly what I mean when I say, “the problem is the loss of user freedom.”

I think you’re misunderstanding something here: @vamsmack:disqus or I didn’t have to choose between breaking a licence agreement or loyalty to my friend. I recommended a piece of software to my friend, but didn’t promise to give it to him; I told him where he could obtain it, paying the developer for his work. I feel sorry for you if everybody you tell about a piece of software immediately expects you to provide it for them.

Another assumption you make is that a non-sale of an intangible item equates to a loss. Don’t assume this. I encourage you to send money to the author of a program in order to show support for the author.

If a person uses this intangible item without honouring the terms by which the vendor chooses to make this item available to people — in this case by paying the price asked by the vendor — then yes, it equates a loss for the vendor. If a developer chooses to give an app away for free, asking for donations in return, this is up to him. He’s banking on other people’s decency to pay him. If a developer is more cynical and puts a price tag on his or her app, then it is his/her right to do so. Thus, people who are using the software without paying for it are stealing from the developer. Plain and simple: If you don’t want to pay for it, don’t use it.

If I see some useful sw running one system (eg. a gaming console), I should be able to take part of that system which I find useful and transfer that knowledge to a different system (eg a specialised network routing machine) then sell that updated machine freely.

Sell that updated machine freely? So you want to make money off of another person’s work without paying them for it. This is basically stealing.

Haxus Magnus

If a brick maker sells some bricks to a builder, should that builder get a chunk of the builder’s fee on top of the bricks that are sold? If a real estate agent earns a commission for selling a property, should the builder of the building get a cut of that commission?

I have already bought my gaming machine and my network router; the company that made these devices have already been paid. I don’t know why they need a chunk of the sale I made after selling my software updated network router.

But that’s the point, you need to pay for the software first. Somewhere else you argue that the brick maker shouldn’t be paid.

At this point we can agree on one thing: If you bought a device/app, you should be allowed to do with it what you want. That included things like jailbreaking, modifying the software and studying it.

What I don’t agree with, is you profiting of another person’s intellectual property without giving them a cut. What I mean by that is: You should be allowed to study the source code of the Playstation’s OS, learn and then create something yourself, but you should not be allowed to just copy the parts you want and sell it as your own work.

To use your brick maker metaphor: It would be as if the builder would feel he was right to use the recipe for the bricks the brick maker invented because he bought one brick. Then he’d use this recipe to make his own bricks and sell them.

No, Stallman does not value “freedom”. If he did, he’d have promoted the BSD license. The GPL, especially version 3, is ASTOUNDINGLY restrictive. Stallman has none, absolutely zero problem with a gun at the head of every computer user and programmer.

My arsenal doesn’t include carpet bombs. I use a Beretta. All it does is raise welts. Neckbeards think it’s just razor burn. From the one time they shaved and were traumatized by the sight of a full face in the mirror.

Haxus Magnus

You’re misunderstanding our position. Our definition of freedom refers to the attitude about where control should reside: should users have control over their computers, or should the vendors of the technology maintain control over those same computers? Our position is that the USER should have control over one’s computer; such control is impossible when a user chooses proprietary software.

> Stallman has none, absolutely zero problem with a gun at the head of every computer user and programmer. That’s ad hominem. Please refrain from making unnecessary arguments like this.

Are you that afraid of technology? I want proof that a user loses control of his/her computer, when he uses proprietary technology, because I don’t see it.

I’m not a programmer, but AFAIK, many parts of Mac OS X are open source, with a BSD licence. Mac OS X is based on basically a standard Unix system, which makes it very accessible. Case in point: If I wanted to do many of the things I had done with various Linux distros, I could.

In terms of software that runs on Mac OS X: Where is a paid-for app restrictive other than in the way that I can’t give to my friends? Most of them are programmed in a standard language (Cocoa in this case) and except for the licence have no limitations what-so-ever.

Please explain.

Haxus Magnus

I want proof that a user loses control of his/her computer, when he uses proprietary technology, because I don’t see it.

What is computer software? Computer software exists to solve an information problem or perform an information task; it is instructions that control a computer. Whoever controls the software implicitly controls the computer. If you can get me show me a non-trivial computer program that doesn’t instruct a computer when you run it, I will accept that Stallman is a liar and cannot be trusted.

I’m not a programmer, but AFAIK, many parts of Mac OS X are open source, with a BSD licence. Mac OS X is based on basically a standard Unix system, which makes it very accessible.

I can heartily recommend the freedom respecting software (you call this open source software) of OS X. The fact that OS X is a Unix system does not absolve Apple of being unjust towards their users. Apple are unjust by asking their users of one’s sovereignty and dividing them from each other.

In terms of software that runs on Mac OS X: Where is a paid-for app restrictive other than in the way that I can’t give to my friends? Most of them are programmed in a standard language (Cocoa in this case) and except for the licence have no limitations what-so-ever.

Au contraire! Proprietary software can impose any sort of usage restrictions: only for home use, only for school use, military use is prohibited, licensed for only one install on three computers at any one time, you may run this program 1488 more times before the license expires, this license expires in three days, you must wear purple socks every Tuesday etc.

You must consider the utility of the program. Without access to code, it is impractical to audit the functionality of the program. You have to place blind trust on the program writer that his program does not harm you. If the software has fixable inadequacies for your situation, the ability to improve your situation is subject to the goodwill of the software master, you are helpless until the master decides to help you.

Without access to the code, the user is helpless to control their own computing.

Proprietary software can impose any sort of usage restrictions: only for home use, only for school use, military use is prohibited, licensed for only one install on three computers at any one time, you may run this program 1488 more times before the license expires, this license expires in three days, you must wear purple socks every Tuesday etc.

This I can see in a licence agreement before installing an application. If I don’t like these terms, I have the freedom not to use it.

Without access to code, it is impractical to audit the functionality of the program. You have to place blind trust on the program writer that his program does not harm you. If the software has fixable inadequacies for your situation, the ability to improve your situation is subject to the goodwill of the software master, you are helpless until the master decides to help you.

This is only practical for people who understand the code, which I for example do not. I’d have to find a different person, place my trust in them to check the application for inadequacies and malevolent code. Same goes for fixing bugs.

OTOH if I buy piece of software I expect (by the licence agreement) to receive support and the squashing of bugs in a timely manner. If the software doesn’t work as advertised or damages my computer or tries to harm me, I’m able to get ahold of the developer and at least repay me.

Indigo

Based on the videos of the developers’ Q&A session from when Jobs returned to Apple, I’d like to think that if Jobs were still alive, he’d pause and think about what just Stallman said, made a point without attacking Stallman personally, and walked away without shedding a tear.

Stallman engaged in a completely personal attack on Steve Jobs. Why should he expect a consideration he was unwilling to give?

His Shadow

I’m often amused at the idea, constantly brought up on blogs, that people who engage in over the top, laughably incorrect and just plain violently stupid ideas deserve a fair hearing and a detailed critique in response to said stupidity.

But they DO! Then it’s fair and bala…oh shit, I see where that leads now!!! Aiiiigggh!!!

LHP

The trouble with the Mr. Stallman’s comment is that it was way too watered-down and tame. Steve Jobs was the biggest con-man in computer history. Not one of Apple’s hardware or software products ever met stated specifications. Every single product announcement was riddled with fraud. Consequently, they are the most widely sued computer manufacturer, ever. Hundreds of school districts were ripped-off by worthless Macintosh crap, and there isn’t a single computer science college professor in the world who will pick their product over someone else’s. Ask Sir Paul McCartney and the folks at Apple Records what they think of the late great Steve Jobs. Their legal settlement check speaks for itself. And don’t forget, in 1986, his own company fired him. I am elated that he is dead.

Haxus Magnus

RMS’s latest comment is consistent with his character; he is opinionated and not afraid of judgement. He doesn’t wish malevolence towards anybody, he wants them to stop being evil.

Define “evil,” please. Do you see it as equivalent to running out of donuts in the break room? Or is your scale more in line with, say, mass genocide?

Haxus Magnus

Evil refers to the unjust power wielded over other people. In the case of people that distribute proprietary software, these people are unjust by restricting freedom over their users. In the case of computer software, users are free when users have implicit permission to study and improve software, share software with friends and contribute to their community. It is unjust to ask users to be helpless (as is the case of withholding source code), and it is unjust to divide communities by asking users to stop sharing published knowledge in the form of software.

It is unjust to ask users to be helpless (as is the case of withholding source code), […]

That implies that people would be able to help themselves when they see the source code of an application. This is, to use a popular term, elitist thinking, because only a small fraction of users are able to understand the source code, the rest of us, even those adept with computers have no clue what to do with it.

What this eventually leads to, is shifting power from those who produced the OS/app to those who can program, who know their way around the source code of an OS/app.

Because while I could sit down and learn how to program for five years and eventually be able to do certain things, I have no desire to do so. I’m not restricting my freedom with any of this, on the contrary. Being forced to learn something I don’t want to, or need only a fraction of the time, would impede my freedom, because then I can’t do the things that I actually want to do.

In the case of computer software, users are free when users have implicit permission to study and improve software, share software with friends and contribute to their community.

This may be the case, but what you’re doing with this is forcing someone whose life ambition and joy is making software to give it away for free, thus restricting his freedom, by not allowing him to feed himself with his work.

There’s one great quote, which came originally from Matthias Claudius, but was later reworded and attributed to Immanuel Kant. I’m trying to translate it as best as I can:

“The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another person begins.”

Haxus Magnus

That implies that people would be able to help themselves when they see the source code of an application.

When I need help with my plumbing, I don’t study fluid dynamics, metallurgy or chemical science; I hire a plumber. When the police arrest me because they suspect me of committing a crime, I don’t go to law school and bone up on the legislation to plead my innocence; I hire a trustworthy barrister to argue on my behalf. When a computer user needs technical help with their software, one doesn’t need to know any technical details; one gets help from a friend or hires a software consultant for advice.

you’re doing with this is forcing someone whose life ambition and joy is making software to give it away for free, thus restricting his freedom, by not allowing him to feed himself with his work.

You’re arguing that making a profit will justify committing an injustice towards the rest of society. I can argue that I want to start a extortion scheme in order to feed my starving family and experiment in human dynamics; the facts that my will family stop starving and the scientific community gains valuable data will never justify my immoral scheme. Also, you assume that relinquishing control (towards the user) means making no sale. You need to consider what it is you’re selling: are you selling artificial scarcity (bits are trivially copied) or are you selling your time (customising software and providing support)

“The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another person begins.”

A software proprietor should not restrict the users’ right to sovereignty and right to contribute to their community.

When I need help with my plumbing, I don’t study fluid dynamics, metallurgy or chemical science; I hire a plumber. When the police arrest me because they suspect me of committing a crime, I don’t go to law school and bone up on the legislation to plead my innocence; I hire a trustworthy barrister to argue on my behalf. When a computer user needs technical help with their software, one doesn’t need to know any technical details; one gets help from a friend or hires a software consultant for advice.

Do you then pay the plumber? Because by your logic he’s just contributing to society and you should be able to go on using your now repaired plumbing without paying him.

Here’s the logical fallacy: You’re denying a software vendor the right to be compensated for his work, but someone else, who is adept at dealing with software problems, who isn’t yourself has the right to?

Again: You’re putting the freedom of yourself and those who can help you above the freedom of another person.

You’re arguing that making a profit will justify committing an injustice towards the rest of society.

How is making a profit — or at least breaking-even — with the work you’ve done, the things you created a crime against society?

You need to consider what it is you’re selling: are you selling artificial scarcity (bits are trivially copied) or are you selling your time (customising software and providing support)

A developer is selling both! The “artificial scarcity” as you call it, the piece of software, is a representation of the work and time consumed it took to create and support it from the perspective of the developer. From the perspective of a user/licensee it is a representation of the value it brings him/her, by bringing joy, saving time, what-have-you. For this the developer deserves compensation.

Vamsmack

The main thrust of this comes down to a software developer deserves to be paid for their work & society deserves to benefit from their hard work. What if we paid a software developer a million bucks every time they shipped software and then the source code etc is released with NO licence OF ANY DESCRIPTION.

Cite an actual example. Or were you under the delusion that “magical” and “wonderful” have FCC mandated specifications? Because if you are talking about actual hardware specifications such as storage, supported technologies and standards, frequency range, CPU speed, hard drive size and amounts of RAM, publishing misleading is actual actionable and would result in lawsuits at the very least and federal investigations at worse.

So since none of that has come to pass regarding Apple’s stated device capabilities, you, like far too many self professed “techies”, are talking out of your ass. As usual.

“I am elated that he is dead.”

Tough talk for a blog, your pathetic cretin. It’s a given that in meatspace, you wouldn’t say shit if your mouth was full, little man.

Oh, while you’re out, can you please get me some new drapes, the current ones are getting dull.

Asif Ali Rizvan

Biased writing:

“Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.”

Peter Cohen, how much text space would have been lost if you pasted the whole comment, instead of the simile part of the whole comment.

unprofessional and biased.

Gilles

The guy is smart. I hadn’t heard of him in a while and now you dignify him by writing an article on his comments of a dead man. Written from my iPad. May you rest in peace Mr. Jobs.

Vamsmack

Isn’t it just delicious how the freetards all are using profiles to comment on these articles which appear to be created especially for this thread.

I get that you don’t like it when people insult your Saint iGNUcius but he was being an asshole plain and simple, when you go around taking some amount of joy in someones passing expect to get people pissed off.

Oh hell yes! And when you call out these types, they mumble something about privacy, but all they really do is cover their asses, because they are cowards who don’t want to be held accountable for the things they spew in comments.

Like with the ‘Free Software Movement’ It is okay to demand everything to be free but they don’t understand that it is the closed paid for software that allows Free Software to be developed.

There would not be a free version of app’s and applications and software without the investment of the customers of the paid versions.

I support my software suppliers and if a paid for version is available and I use the software consistently I will gladly pay for the full version to contribute to the developers and allow them to offer a cut down free version for those that cannot afford it or use ‘free’ operating systems such as Linux where most users think that since the OS is free they should not have to pay for any software.

Exactly. I like free stuff as much as the next guy, but some people need food to survive. Just look at the uproar when the developer of Growl announced that he’d be putting his app on the MAS; freetards and neckbeards tried to tear him apart online, because he dared make money with his creation, even though it actually still is open source.

Being completely honest here:

Using a Mac has taught me the value of software. On Windows and Linux I didn’t give a rats ass about where the software came from. I had two paid applications on my Win XP machines: MS Office and Kaspersky, that’s it. Everything else was freeware or stupid shareware. The main reason? Most software is shit on Windows. There are a few good apps, most of them free, and tons of paid-for software that’s a total rip-off.

On the Mac things are different. Starting with 1Password I found lots of apps that actually worked as promised and they didn’t even cost very much. At this point Whenever I find a free app on the internet that has made my life/work easier, I try to find a donate button on the homepage, to give something back.

Absolutely Certain

That’s a very jaded biased point of view. There is tons of great Software available on Windows both free and paid for. Mac doesn’t have the exclusiveness on good software.

I do agree with you with regards to ‘people need food to survive’ comment. I’m a developer and whilst I do love developing and am quite happy to give away the odd bit of freeware, you have got to eat at the end of the day.

I’m aware of that, please forgive my hyperbole, but for my needs I found that there were just too many bad pieces of software that didn’t perform as advertised or not at all. It left a bitter after taste.

I agree, there are good apps on Windows — how many hours of work TreeSize Pro saved me yeesh — and there are shitty apps on Mac OS X and even more of those on iOS.

Absolutely Certain

Ah yes, you’re the person that had problems installing apps on Windows Mobile, when all the rest of us were just double clicking the .Cab files that were the actual installation files, and un-installing them by doing the add-remove programmes thing.

FreeSpeechLover

Aaahhh, the beauty of freedom of speech (for RMS & the sycophant fanboys & girls that will be turning Jobs into a God). Let the beatification begin. RMS didnt need to be so caustic, but there are many who feel the same way. Jobs started out as an innovator, but the became a censoring dictator in his own world.

Jobs started out as an innovator, but the became a censoring dictator in his own world.

Censoring? Dictator? Concerning what? Is there any content on the web besides Flash porn videos that you don’t have access to? Do you go into Playstation forums and accuse Sony of being Nazis for pulling other OS support from the PS3?

I know it’s standard fare to refer to anyone who dares defend Jobs and Apple as zealots and fanboys, but does it ever occur to you wankers that the reason Apple critics get so much flack is not due to any religious fervor on the part of Apple supporters, but because many of the criticisms levelled at Jobs and Apple are imbecilic at best and outright fabrications at worst?

Well Manson had followers too. Devoted ones at that. I guess broken people will always be around. Buddhism does not believe in good and evil, it rather believes is confusion and clarity, this guy apparently is very confused.

Anonymous

I don’t know what made me want to throw up more: his statement pertaining to Steve Jobs or the linked video concerning the toe-jam.

Mitzi

He says he doesn’t like Jobs but without Steve he’d have no one to rail against. Steve Jobs made this guys entire career. This idiot already had his 15 mins. of fame and has been put in his place by The Man himself. Don’t give him another 15 just because Steve is gone. The worst thing you can do to a person like this is ignore him.

Gonzo

Since Steve is not here to not give a fuck about this frustrated asshole’s comments, I’m gonna not give a fuck for him.

Marie

While I don’t think RMS’s tone was very polite or respectful, I’m also tired of the media this week portraying Jobs as a saint, prophet, and god as well. RMS makes some good points in relation to software, profits, DRM, and patents. And please let us not forget that the Apple products are made in China sweatshops. Although I’m not as radical as RMS, he is a strong advocate of social justice and I respect him immensely for that.

His Shadow

I’m also tired of the media this week portraying Jobs as a saint, prophet, and god as well.

Good thing that what they really did was portray him as a visionary, a force for change and a mentor, not to mention the most important CEO of this last century.

Steve Jobs revolutionized not one, not two, but three industries. Do you tire of the accolades heaped upon him for 45+ years of accomplishments that changed the world around you?

That’s your problem.

jaswanth koppu

u f****r stallman ..if you have guts create a product like steve jobs and market it ..lets see how will you do ..you can’t even manufacture it, dam sure … managing stores,software,hardware and every thing…

you guys just created a software and marketing it as a free.. “if its a paid os then lets see how many will migrate to linux?”…

richard stallman ….one day you will also die.. on that day they say ” world has lost an Idiot”

steve jobs is the person who changed the life style of a normal human, creating extraordinary products and wonderfull software to that.

Rasky

I think Mr. Stallman is right about Jobs and whose criticize Stallman does not anderstand the principle of the equation…

His Shadow

I’m certainly going to hold Stallman in higher regard knowing that the best and brightest of the freetards are lining up ro defend him with incoherent word salad babble.

Better to eat your own toe-jam than to eat Wheaties because that’s what the people who sell you ‘cool’ are pushing this week. Great things such as Apple/Jobs achieved can be accomplished without holding users in ProprietaryPrison, but the first thing that the HippieSnobAppeal crowd all do when they get a piece of the IBM/Micro$not action is to start cutting out all of the innovators who are ‘outside’ their ‘loop’ so that they can keep all the ‘loot’ for themselves. TechnologyToys are ‘fun’ and ‘cool’ but the price one pays is their privacy and freedom. They are ‘toys’ for us and ‘tools’ for business and the government…BigBrother knows if you had your Wheaties for breakfast, but they don’t know if you had your ToeJam… Just because you don’t want to face the fact that you give all of your personal information to a supermarket chain in order get an IdentityCard that gets you a nickle off on a can of beans doesn’t make the people who don’t do that ‘kooks’… That being said, there’s a reason nobody holds a ToeJam PotLuck dinner… pa PerformanceArt “I’m Only A Pawn In My Game”

Info

Nothing wrong with his OPINION. Something wrong with the comments on this page. So much hate…. tsk tsk. Geebus help us all

His Shadow

Nothing wrong with his OPINION.

Nothing wrong with HAVING an opinion.

His opinion happens to be based more on his (Stallma’s) personal ideology, and not so much on objective facts.

Absolutely Certain

You really aren’t the right person to be talking about facts. But objective facts are important.

His Shadow

I was wondering when you would come padding along, looking for attention.

Hey look another one of those insensitive, uninformed cowards who spew hate and lies anonymously.

Please leave.

dude

please shut up

Root

So you want them free, you don’t care about open source or what? I don’t get it. Actually if you knew a little about Apple, you probably know that they did investments in open source projects as webkit.

Even though, if you are worry about real open source projects and even FREE, you can always go to http://opensource.apple.com/ and get those stuff you want from previous releases.

Stop talking like you know.

Facts first please.

Anonymous

Good we have Stallman around, to speak those uncomfortable truths. He was being dismissed decades ago as an extremist yet a lot of his predictions have come true. Jobs was as rude as Stallman was, and would have been rude to you if he disagreed with you as well.

Quentin Leo

Stallman can say anything he wants to. He is welcome to continue chipping at stone while attempting to make his bitter orthodox point. Computers he describes as jail are used freely throughout the world for many purposes, including to subvert ruling elites who have enslaved millions in the name of orthodoxy.

wow, in two years, they rectified that mistake, and you’re shocked, shocked that I didn’t keep track of it for this comment string.

bless your heart

metallurgical research

Many metallurgical engineers have sometimes pondered over the idea of global relocation in search of the best paying jobs. http://www.secat.net/

Anon

I guess you could say RMS is…

a GNUshbag.

dude

disagreeing and giving laughable criticism to him doesnt make you any better a person you dipshits

Kevin

I hate the free software movement, the open source movement, and most of all the mentally ill hippies from the early days of software development. One thing I’ve noticed about these free love (or software, or anything) types is that they preach peace, love, the golden rule, etc. but it’s all just a cover for their psychopathic selfishness, desire for publicity, their resentment against people who have made money, and so on. I have never met one of these counter-culture types who I would trust to give me the time of day. As far as disgusting personal habits, that’s pretty typical of pseudo-intellectual Jewish types. This is one reason I avoid Jews as much as possible. They disgust me. I much prefer to hang out with Asians, particularly Japanese.

David Davidović

RMS is a dickbag.

BhatMahn

Looking at the comments it’s clear that emotion is taking over reason. Stallman did just say that he’s not glad Steve is dead.

Let me put it simply, would you be glad if someone stopped doing something you thought was very harmful to society? Presumably yes. Would you want them to die? Presumably (unless you’re quite evil) no. Do you understand yet or do we have to paint by numbers still?

He’s glad he’s gone because he was a very successful promoter of proprietary software; Steve was also the ‘cool’ face of legal practices that made it illegal to use your device as you see fit, and I aren’t talking about piracy prevention either! Jailbreaking was also necessary if you wanted to run software you’d made yourself or downloaded from somewhere other than the Apple store. You may very well say that it’s good for security reasons but then your laptop doesn’t impose such restrictions on you even if you’re running windows instead of a Free Software version of Linux.

Please learn to overcome your knee-jerk reactions, don’t forget that people having a profound impact on the world are not merely ordinary people, they’re also powers in this world!

BhatMahn

Riiiiight….. So you stepped away from Free Software (which is a good idea) because of disagreeing with its founder. So, please explain how that makes any sense.

BhatMahn

Yes. What would have been a more effective contribution? You could write the biggest and most complex piece of software to give orgasms to everybody but so long as there was no legal construct to protect it and keep it freely available for everyone you’d have to throw dollar around to cum….

I’m not sure you’ve quite grasped the significance of the legal system yet. You know that slavery was abolished by act of parliament right? It’s basically the same thing, a legal construct written down…

BhatMahn

Steve Jobs didn’t write any code, he wasn’t a programmer, he was a business man. In the early days of Apple the big shot with the technical stuff was Steve Wozniak…

People aren’t worshipping a technical genius here, they’re worshipping an egocentric business man out to make money like every other business man.

Ray Liptak

horseshit. android is linux and it’s been adopted by way, way more people than IOS. I know this comment is four years old but it’s still ridiculous after all these years

Ray Liptak

how’s that working out in 2016? Oh, right. Android is kicking the ever loving holy shit out of ios.